Sinenkani Football Club v South African Football Association and Others

Sinenkani Football Club, a participant in the ABC Motsepe League (Eastern Cape Inland Stream), lost a decisive league match on 25 January 2025 against FC Ravens. The match commissioner appointed by SAFA was alleged to be the biological father of a FC Ravens player who participated in the match. Sinenkani lodged a complaint with SAFA under the SAFA Competition Uniform Rules, alleging a violation of Rule 30.1, which prohibits appointment of match commissioners connected directly or indirectly to participating teams. The Provincial Executive Officer dismissed the complaint as non-compliant, and SAFA’s legal officer refused to refer the matter to arbitration. Facing imminent provincial playoffs that would determine promotion to the National First Division, Sinenkani approached the High Court urgently to review and set aside these decisions and to interdict the playoffs pending proper determination of its complaint.

The decisions of the fourth respondent (6 February 2025) and fifth respondent (17 March 2025) were reviewed and set aside. The matter was remitted to SAFA for proper investigation and determination in terms of its Competition Rules. Pending that determination, the playoff match between FC Ravens and Amavarara FC scheduled for 11 April 2025 was interdicted. The first to fifth respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s costs, including costs of two counsel.

The case affirms that decisions of sports governing bodies exercising public power are subject to judicial review under PAJA. It reinforces procedural fairness requirements in internal sports dispute-resolution mechanisms and confirms that administrative decisions remain binding until set aside by a court. The judgment is significant for safeguarding fairness and integrity in South African football administration.